Recently, I’ve been looking at some governance votes again, and I found that many votes are “delegated” to those familiar faces. In other words, no matter how dispersed the tokens are, the final decision still ends up concentrated in the hands of a few people… It’s a bit like a company meeting, where everyone hands over their voting rights to the most vocal speaker, and then it starts to become oligarchic.

What’s more subtle is that from time to time, large transfers or movements of hot and cold wallets on exchanges appear on the chain, and the group immediately interprets this as “smart money positioning.” But if this “smart money” also conveniently accumulates votes, who is governance really governing? The users, or liquidity and influence… I’m now more cautious when voting; I’d rather vote less than risk handing over my tiny rights with a single click.